3 ms·
They can, but they won't be able to compete. When photography replaced many of the uses of painting, some painting jobs were lost, but photography ones were ga
by xdennis 4y ago
They can, but they won't be able to compete.
When photography replaced many of the uses of painting, some painting jobs were lost, but photography ones were gained. Now, many creative jobs will be done by computers, leaving the world less enjoyable for people who enjoy creating.
Sure, some people will continue to be creative, but look at what happened to art after photography: we got modern art, where people just piss on a canvas and sell it for millions based on the name of the artist alone, not the value of the art.
AI is progress in the same way nukes are progress: you have to get it or you'll be left in the dust. But is humanity better for it?
- kredd 4y agoJobs will be lost, people will still do it as a hobby. When I go for a swim or a run, I don't try to compete with general population, mostly try to improve myself. And that's what will happen for digital illustration and CGI business as well, to my understanding. My glimmer of hope is if everything we see on a daily basis online is created by AI/AI-assisted tools, then we will go back to trying to be more creative in real life and our local surroundings.
- woah 4y agoPretty messed up that it used to be that you'd put hard hours into running and exercising and then you could be faster than anyone else in your village, and now any asshole can just sit on a horse
- woah 4y agoAre you saying that photography is a bad thing?
- zigman1 4y ago> They can, but they won't be able to compete. Compete for what? > ...the world less enjoyable for people who enjoy creating But why?? I think you measure everything only one how much you can sell something. Sure some art earns money, but many people do art without thinking if they can earn something out of it. And to be clear, we got much more than just modern art, which you tried to nitpick here.